Antony Green's Election Blog

The Distribution of Preferences under the ACT's Hare-Clark System

Saturday night's ACT election is conducted under the Hare-Clark electoral system, like the Senate a form of Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote (PR-STV). Both Hare-Clark and the Senate elect members by proportional representation based on quotas and preferences

However, where Senate elections are overwhelmingly about votes cast for parties, Hare-Clark is a system based on votes for candidates. While most voters will still choose a candidate based on their party affiliation, ACT ballot papers require that candidate be chosen and parties have little say over which of their candidates will be elected.

Like the Senate ballot paper, ACT ballot paper list candidates in groups. However, Senate ballot papers have the above-the-line party voting option and parties determine the order candidates are listed in their group.

At ACT elections there is no above the line option and the order candidates are listed in each group is randomised by a process called Robson rotation. There are 60 versions of the ballot paper in each of the ACT's five electorates, randomising the preferences of so-called 'linear' votes, ballot papers completed by voters numbering 1 to 5 down a party's column.

Along with the ban on distributing how-to-vote material within 100 metres of a polling place, the lack of a party vote makes name recognition important, even for major party candidates. Candidates are competing not only against candidate of other parties, but also against candidates from their own party.

A sample of the ACT ballot paper is shown below. (Click for larger version.)

There are five members to be elected from each electorate. Major parties stand full lists of five candidates, smaller parties between two and five candidates. The ballot paper instructions advise voters to number at least five preferences, but a valid first preference is all that is required for a ballot paper to be formal.

Where at Senate elections two-thirds of Senators are elected with full quotas in the initial stages of the counts, very few ACT candidates are elected on first preferences.

The six ACT Hare-Clark elections have elected 102 MLAs, but only 14 achieved a quota in their own right. Of those, 11 were party leaders, with only Labor's Wayne Berry in 1998 not polling a quota in his own right.

The highest individual candidate votes were recorded by Chief Ministers at the end of their first term in office, Labor's Jon Stanhope (36.9%) in Ginninderra in 2004, and Liberal Kate Carnell (33.5%) in Molonglo in 1998.

For the major parties, around 90% of voters give all their initial preferences to the candidates of their chosen party, creating strong preference flows. These preferences are randomised by Robson Rotation. Candidates that poll well on first preferences also tend to do better on preferences from the group's excluded candidates.

Because the counting system excludes and elects candidates based on candidate votes rather than party votes, parties can sometimes gain an advantage by having their vote evenly spread across all the candidates of the party.

The best example of this happening was in Ginninderra at the 2012 ACT election. On the first preference votes, Labor candidates totaled 2.39 quotas, the Liberal Party 2.02 quotas, and the Greens 0.61. On these totals, the Greens appeared best placed to win the final seat.

However, Labor's vote was more evenly split across its candidates, and this split allowed Labor to elect three MLAs while the Greens missed out.

Below I explain how this happened, an explanation that also explains much of the intricacy of a Hare-Clark count.

The table below sets out the initial tally of first preference votes by candidate and party, Candidate have been listed in descending vote order within each group.

Party/Candidate

Party

Votes

Pct

Quotas

Group A - ACT Greens

GRN

6,676

10.10

0.6062

Meredith HUNTER

GRN

4,462

6.75

0.4052

Hannah PARRIS

GRN

1,137

1.72

0.1032

James HIGGINS

GRN

1,077

1.63

0.0978

Group B - Australian Motorist Party

AMP

4,794

7.26

0.4353

Chic HENRY

AMP

4,360

6.60

0.3959

Darryl WALFORD

AMP

434

0.66

0.0394

Group C - ACT Labor

ALP

26,354

39.88

2.3930

Mary PORTER

ALP

9,423

14.26

0.8556

Chris BOURKE

ALP

5,048

7.64

0.4584

Yvette BERRY

ALP

4,917

7.44

0.4465

Glen McCREA

ALP

4,153

6.29

0.3771

Jayson HINDER

ALP

2,813

4.26

0.2554

Group D - Liberal Democratic Party

LDP

1,213

1.84

0.1101

Matt THOMPSON

LDP

819

1.24

0.0744

Mustafa JAWADI

LDP

394

0.60

0.0358

Group E - Marion Le Social Justice Party

SJP

940

1.42

0.0854

Marion Le

SJP

532

0.81

0.0483

Nehmat Nana JBEILI

SJP

162

0.25

0.0147

Kate REYNOLDS

SJP

105

0.16

0.0095

Karamia Le

SJP

80

0.12

0.0073

Majlinda BITANI

SJP

61

0.09

0.0055

Group F - Canberra Liberals

LIB

22,275

33.71

2.0226

Alistair COE

LIB

10,017

15.16

0.9096

Vicki DUNNE

LIB

5,167

7.82

0.4692

Jacob VADAKKEDATHU

LIB

2,820

4.27

0.2561

Matt WATTS

LIB

2,750

4.16

0.2497

Merinda NASH

LIB

1,521

2.30

0.1381

Group G - Bullet Train for Canberra

BTFC

2,358

3.57

0.2141

Chris BUCKNELL

BTFC

1,262

1.91

0.1146

Tony HALTON

BTFC

1,096

1.66

0.0995

Ungrouped

1,466

2.22

0.1331

Emmanuel EZEKIEL-HART

IND

589

0.89

0.0535

Norm GINGELL

IND

454

0.69

0.0412

Glen TAKKENBERG

-

279

0.42

0.0253

Darren CHURCHILL

-

144

0.22

0.0131

Formal

66,076

Informal

2,569

3.74

Total / Turnout

68,645

90.16

Quota

11,013

In the above table, while the Green total is higher than the Labor total beyond two quotas, Labor's second and third placed candidates, Chris Bourke and Yvette Berry, both have more votes than the highest polling Green candidate, Meredith Hunter.

The count then proceeded to successively exclude the lowest polling candidates. Ballot papers were re-examined and distributed to the next continuing candidate preferenced on each ballot paper.

By Count 16 fifteen candidates had been excluded, leaving 13 candidates in the race for five seats. There were five candidates each from the Labor and Liberal Parties, along with one remaining candidate from the Greens, Australian Motoring Party and Bullet Train for Canberra.

The totals for each candidate, totals by party, plus change in totals since since Count 1, are shown in the table below. With the other two Green candidates excluded, Meredith Hunter now leads Labor's Chris Bourke and Yvette Berry.

Party

Party/Candidate

Change

Votes

Pct

Quotas

GRN

ACT Greens

-219

6,457

9.77

0.5863

GRN

Meredith HUNTER

+1,995

6,457

9.77

0.5863

GRN

Hannah PARRIS

-1,137

0

0.00

0.0000

GRN

James HIGGINS

-1,077

0

0.00

0.0000

AMP

Australian Motorist Party

+305

5,099

7.72

0.4630

AMP

Chic HENRY

+739

5,099

7.72

0.4630

AMP

Darryl WALFORD

-434

0

0.00

0.0000

ALP

ACT Labor

+1,422

27,776

42.04

2.5221

ALP

Mary PORTER

+440

9,863

14.93

0.8956

ALP

Chris BOURKE

+312

5,360

8.11

0.4867

ALP

Yvette BERRY

+265

5,182

7.84

0.4705

ALP

Glen McCREA

+222

4,375

6.62

0.3973

ALP

Jayson HINDER

+183

2,996

4.53

0.2720

LDP

Liberal Democratic Party

-1,213

0

..

..

LDP

Matt THOMPSON

-819

0

..

..

LDP

Mustafa JAWADI

-394

0

..

..

SJP

Marion Le Social Justice Party

-940

0

..

..

SJP

Marion Le

-532

0

..

..

SJP

Nehmat Nana JBEILI

-162

0

..

..

SJP

Kate REYNOLDS

-105

0

..

..

SJP

Karamia Le

-80

0

..

..

SJP

Majlinda BITANI

-61

0

..

..

LIB

Canberra Liberals

+1,419

23,694

35.86

2.1515

LIB

Alistair COE

+337

10,354

15.67

0.9402

LIB

Vicki DUNNE

+312

5,479

8.29

0.4975

LIB

Jacob VADAKKEDATHU

+285

3,105

4.70

0.2819

LIB

Matt WATTS

+329

3,079

4.66

0.2796

LIB

Merinda NASH

+156

1,677

2.54

0.1523

BTFC

Bullet Train for Canberra

+188

2,546

3.85

0.2312

BTFC

Chris BUCKNELL

+1,284

2,546

3.85

0.2312

BTFC

Tony HALTON

-1,096

0

..

..

Ungrouped

-1,466

0

..

..

IND

Emmanuel EZEKIEL-HART

-589

0

..

..

IND

Norm GINGELL

-454

0

..

..

-

Glen TAKKENBERG

-279

0

..

..

-

Darren CHURCHILL

-144

0

..

..

Exhausted

+504

504

0.76

0.0458

Loss by Fraction

0

0

..

..

From this point I am re-arranging the tables to show totals by party at the top followed by a listing of candidates in descending vote order. At count 17, the fifth placed Liberal candidate Merinda Nash was excluded, and the new totals and change in totals are shown below.

Party

Party/Candidate

Change

Votes

Pct

Quotas

ALP

ACT Labor

+77

27,853

42.15

2.5291

LIB

Canberra Liberals

-174

23,520

35.60

2.1357

GRN

ACT Greens

+20

6,477

9.80

0.5881

AMP

Australian Motorist Party

+22

5,121

7.75

0.4650

BTFC

Bullet Train for Canberra

+28

2,574

3.90

0.2337

LIB

Alistair COE

+380

10,734

16.24

0.9747

ALP

Mary PORTER

+45

9,908

14.99

0.8997

GRN

Meredith HUNTER

+20

6,477

9.80

0.5881

LIB

Vicki DUNNE

+410

5,889

8.91

0.5347

ALP

Chris BOURKE

+11

5,371

8.13

0.4877

ALP

Yvette BERRY

+6

5,188

7.85

0.4711

AMP

Chic HENRY

+22

5,121

7.75

0.4650

ALP

Glen McCREA

+8

4,383

6.63

0.3980

LIB

Matt WATTS

+401

3,480

5.27

0.3160

LIB

Jacob VADAKKEDATHU

+312

3,417

5.17

0.3103

ALP

Jayson HINDER

+7

3,003

4.54

0.2727

BTFC

Chris BUCKNELL

+28

2,574

3.90

0.2337

LIB

Merinda NASH

-1,677

0

0.00

0.0000

Exhausted

+27

531

0.80

0.0482

Loss by Fraction

0

0

0.00

0.0000

Count 18 now excluded Chris Bucknell, the final Bullet Train for Canberra candidate. Looking at the party totals, the Labor total is 2.5949 quotas, the Greens 0.6323. If this was a direct contest between Labor's total beyond two quotas and the Greens, the Greens would be advantaged as its vote is concentrated in one candidate, Meredith Hunter. Labor's vote is spread over five candidates, of which at least two will be excluded in the count. Leakage of preferences out of the Labor ticket would advantage Meredith Hunter.

However, it is clear from the Labor ticket that Mary Porter will reach a quota first, and the balance of the Labor ticket will eventually be split across two candidates, Chris Bourke and Yvette Berry. Depending on the split between the two, both could have more votes than Meredith Hunter, electing both Labor candidates.

Party

Party/Candidate

Change

Votes

Pct

Quotas

ALP

ACT Labor

+725

28,578

43.25

2.5949

LIB

Canberra Liberals

+529

24,049

36.40

2.1837

GRN

ACT Greens

+486

6,963

10.54

0.6323

AMP

Australian Motorist Party

+511

5,632

8.52

0.5114

BTFC

Bullet Train for Canberra

-2,574

0

0.00

0.0000

LIB

Alistair COE

+201

10,935

16.55

0.9929

ALP

Mary PORTER

+181

10,089

15.27

0.9161

GRN

Meredith HUNTER

+486

6,963

10.54

0.6323

LIB

Vicki DUNNE

+128

6,017

9.11

0.5464

AMP

Chic HENRY

+511

5,632

8.52

0.5114

ALP

Chris BOURKE

+147

5,518

8.35

0.5010

ALP

Yvette BERRY

+141

5,329

8.06

0.4839

ALP

Glen McCREA

+139

4,522

6.84

0.4106

LIB

Matt WATTS

+97

3,577

5.41

0.3248

LIB

Jacob VADAKKEDATHU

+103

3,520

5.33

0.3196

ALP

Jayson HINDER

+117

3,120

4.72

0.2833

BTFC

Chris BUCKNELL

-2,574

0

0.00

0.0000

Exhausted

+323

854

1.29

0.0775

Loss by Fraction

0

0

0.00

0.0000

Count 19 excluded Labor's fifth placed Labor candidate Jayson Hinder. A small flow of preferences to Liberal Alistair Coe elected him to the first seat in the electorate, and Count 20 then distributed his small surplus of votes.

While Hinder's exclusion saw the Green lead the third Labor quota 0.6436 to 2.5474, though the gap between Meredith Hunter and her two trailing Labor contestants narrowed.

Counts 23-24 now excluded the third placed Liberal candidate Matt Watts, putting both remaining Liberal candidate Vicki Dunne and leading Labor candidate Mary Porter over the quota. Again preferences favoured Labor 321 votes to 61 for the Greens, putting the quotas at Greens 0.6563 and Labor 2.6083. Meredith Hunter maintained a narrowing lead over both Chris Bourke and Yvette Berry.

Party

Party/Candidate

Change

Votes

Pct

Quotas

ALP

ACT Labor

+321

28,725

43.47

2.6083

LIB

Canberra Liberals

-993

22,506

34.06

2.0436

GRN

ACT Greens

+61

7,228

10.94

0.6563

AMP

Australian Motorist Party

+208

6,109

9.25

0.5547

LIB

Vicki DUNNE (Elected 2)

+3,993

11,493

17.39

1.0436

ALP

Mary PORTER (Elected 3)

+89

11,058

16.74

1.0041

GRN

Meredith HUNTER

+61

7,228

10.94

0.6563

ALP

Chris BOURKE

+119

6,379

9.65

0.5792

AMP

Chic HENRY

+208

6,109

9.25

0.5547

ALP

Yvette BERRY

+61

6,047

9.15

0.5491

ALP

Glen McCREA

+52

5,241

7.93

0.4759

LIB

Matt WATTS

-4,986

0

0.00

0.0000

Exhausted

+402

1,501

2.27

0.1363

Loss by Fraction

+1

7

0.01

0.0006

Count 25 distributed the small surplus of Liberal Vicki Dunne and Count 26 that of Labor's Mary Porter. As the table below shows, Green candidate Meredith Hunter now leads the list of remaining candidates ahead of the Motorist Party's Chic Henry followed by the three remaining Labor candidates.

Party

Party/Candidate

Change

Votes

Pct

Quotas

ALP

ACT Labor

+55

28,780

43.56

2.6133

LIB

Canberra Liberals

-480

22,026

33.33

2.0000

GRN

ACT Greens

+53

7,281

11.02

0.6611

AMP

Australian Motorist Party

+366

6,475

9.80

0.5879

LIB

Vicki DUNNE (Elected 2)

-480

11,013

16.67

1.0000

ALP

Mary PORTER (Elected 3)

-45

11,013

16.67

1.0000

GRN

Meredith HUNTER

+53

7,281

11.02

0.6611

AMP

Chic HENRY

+366

6,475

9.80

0.5879

ALP

Chris BOURKE

+40

6,419

9.71

0.5829

ALP

Yvette BERRY

+29

6,076

9.20

0.5517

ALP

Glen McCREA

+31

5,272

7.98

0.4787

Exhausted

0

1,501

2.27

0.1363

Loss by Fraction

+6

13

0.02

0.0012

Counts 27-30 now excluded the fourth placed Labor candidate Glen McCrea. This resulted in the Labor ticket losing 988 votes and the Greens gaining 381, widening the Green quota lead from 0.6957 to 2.5236. However, McRea's votes overwhelmingly flowed to the remaining Labor candidates, Chris Bourke and Yvette Berry. While Labor's partial third quota trails the Green total, Hare-Clark is a candidate based counting system and Labor's surplus beyond Mary Porter's filled quota is split across two candidates, and both Bourke and Berry lead Green candidate Meredith Hunter with Chic Henry's preferences to determine whether the final seats go two Labor or one Labor one Green.

Party

Party/Candidate

Change

Votes

Pct

Quotas

ALP

ACT Labor

-988

27,792

42.06

2.5236

LIB

Canberra Liberals

0

22,026

33.33

2.0000

GRN

ACT Greens

+381

7,662

11.60

0.6957

AMP

Australian Motorist Party

+194

6,669

10.09

0.6056

ALP

Chris BOURKE

+2,231

8,650

13.09

0.7854

ALP

Yvette BERRY

+2,053

8,129

12.30

0.7381

GRN

Meredith HUNTER

+381

7,662

11.60

0.6957

AMP

Chic HENRY

+194

6,669

10.09

0.6056

ALP

Glen McCREA

-5,272

0

0.00

0.0000

Exhausted

+408

1,909

2.89

0.1733

Loss by Fraction

+5

18

0.03

0.0016

Counts 31-34 now excluded the Australian Motorist Party's Chic Henry. With only Labor and Green candidates remaining, two-thirds of Henry's preferences exhausted at this point, but those that did flow favoured Labor's two candidates over Meredith Hunter. The Green total quota is still ahead of Labor's partial third quota, but Labor's total beyond one quota is split across two candidates in Chris Bourke and Yvette Berry, and both have more votes than Meredith Hunter meaning she will be the last candidate excluded.

Party

Party/Candidate

Change

Votes

Pct

Quotas

ALP

ACT Labor

+1,928

29,720

44.98

2.6986

LIB

Canberra Liberals

0

22,026

33.33

2.0000

GRN

ACT Greens

+650

8,312

12.58

0.7547

AMP

Australian Motorist Party

-6,669

0

0.00

0.0000

ALP

Chris BOURKE

+869

9,519

14.41

0.8643

ALP

Yvette BERRY

+1,059

9,188

13.91

0.8343

GRN

Meredith HUNTER

+650

8,312

12.58

0.7547

AMP

Chic HENRY

-6,669

0

0.00

0.0000

Exhausted

+4,089

5,998

9.08

0.5446

Loss by Fraction

+2

20

0.03

0.0018

Count 35 now excluded all of Meredith Hunter's full value votes, putting both Chris Bourke and Yvette Berry over a quota. While on the initial party totals it had appeared that Meredith Hunter would win the final seat, the candidate based nature of the electoral system delivered three seats to Labor because the party's total vote was more evenly distributed across candidates.

Party

Party/Candidate

Change

Votes

Pct

Quotas

ALP

ACT Labor

+5,289

35,009

52.98

3.1789

LIB

Canberra Liberals

0

22,026

33.33

2.0000

GRN

ACT Greens

-8,222

90

0.14

0.0082

ALP

Chris BOURKE (Elected 4)

+2,488

12,007

18.17

1.0903

ALP

Yvette BERRY (Elected 5)

+2,801

11,989

18.14

1.0886

GRN

Meredith HUNTER

-8,222

90

0.14

0.0082

Exhausted

+2,933

8,931

13.52

0.8110

Loss by Fraction

0

20

0.03

0.0018

Comments

Before the introduction of above the line voting did this type of thing happen with senate voting?

I'm not really familiar with Hare Clark or alternative proportional voting systems, but is there a fairer method? This type of outcome being an aspect of a electoral method seems undesirable.

COMMENT: Hare-Clark is an election contested between candidates so talking about party quotas is only an approximation of what happens.

The Senate system is much more party based. I used this example to explain why the way we talk about results in the Senate doesn't always apply to Hare-Clark.

Once a candidate has reached a quota and been elected, is it the case that any votes (or preferences) that the candidate then receives from that point on get distributed to the candidate preferenced next on that ballot paper?

Or is there some type of apportionment of all of the votes for the elected candidate, so that the number of surplus votes get distributed based on the preferences of all of the voters for that candidate, rather than just those that happen to be counted last?

COMMENT: After a candidate reaches a quota, they are declared elected and can receive no more preferences. At any stage of the count, if a ballot paper has a next preference for a candidate who has either been elected or excluded, then that preference is skipped and the next preference for a candidate remaining in the count is used.

In the Hare-Clark system, the bundle of votes received that puts a candidate over the quota is the one examined to determine the distribution of surplus to quota votes. If elected on first preferences, that means all first preference votes. If elected later in the count on a transfer from another candidate, only the votes in the transferred bundle are examined to determine the surplus.

- Haydn October 14, 2016 at 05:03 PM

Was it not also because the LIB and AMP voters preferred LAB over GRN? Democracy at work.

COMMENT: There were very few Liberal preferences distributed. The two Labor candidates were already ahead by the time that AMP preferences were distributed. If you check at the end of Count 34, after AMP was distributed, the Labor total was 2.6986 quotas and the Green total 0.7547. Had one of those Labor candidate reached a quota at that point, then the Greens would have won the last seat not Labor. It was the fact both Labor candidates were short of a quota and higher than the single Green candidate that delivered Labor three seats.

- Allan October 14, 2016 at 09:41 PM

Surely as each voter gets a different ballot the 'how to vote' (distributed to your known supporters in advance) would simply say 'vote XX party 1,2,3,4,5'

That would then give you an even split across the parties candidates and as you state above an advantage over another party that doesn't issue one and simply relies on the voter to mark the paper as they see fit.

It makes little difference that XX party voter #1 gets a paper that lists the candidates as A,B,C,D,E and voter #2 has B,C,D,E,A as long as the voter just goes 1,2,3,4,5

COMMENT: How-to-votes aren't distributed outside polling places in the ACT. Votes for parties still tend to concentrate on known candidates. There is a consistent 'linear' vote where people vote for party over candidates and number straight down their chosen party's candidates, but this is cancelled by some candidates attracting more first preferences because they are known.

Hare-Clark in Australia has diverged substantially from how PR-STV works in Ireland. There parties only endorse as many candidates as they have a hope of electing, and the aim is to split the party's vote across its candidates. First preferences play a more important role than transfers by preference in Ireland, and choice of party candidate is less of an issue.

In Australia, advocacy of Hare-Clark tends to come from people who think parties are evil and should be forced to give voters choice of candidate. Minimum numbers of preferences and grouping of candidates means a major party like Labor has to offer 5 candidates even though they expect to elect only two or three seats. The use of countbacks to fill casual vacancies also causes parties to stand more candidates. The bans on how-to-votes along with randomisation of candidate listing is about preventing parties from determining the order in which its candidates are elected.

Parties like the Greens will stand fewer than five candidates because they can only hope to win one and at best two members, and standing more candidates causes leakage out of tickets as preferences.

When you compare how Hare-Clark is described by its advocates in Australia to forms of PR-STV overseas, they sound like entirely different systems.

- Chris C October 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM

As you mentioned in an earlier essay, at the last ACT election the Canberra Times did a poll of voters' intentions and got it wrong, and as far as I know for this election no poll has been done by any of the local media outlets (I could be wrong). Since polls has been around is this the first election of a state or territory where there has been no poll by any media outlet?

COMMENT: I've done both ACT and NT elections where there were no polls.

- Widya October 15, 2016 at 04:05 PM

In response to James, it isn't clear this kind of outcome is entirely unfair. After all, the ALP's three seats were elected at an average vote of 0.90 quotas per seat, against a notional 0.75 quotas per seat if the Greens had achieved their seat.

- kme October 16, 2016 at 12:24 AM

Re. Hare-Clarke: Conflicting opinions have been published as to how you can ensure that a candidate you do not favour receives NO benefit from your vote. One opinion is to number every box, putting that candidate last. A second opinion is to leave the candidate without a number, i.e. that the box should be left blank.

Which is right?

COMMENTS: It make no difference. A vote can never reach the last preference so whether it is there or not doesn't matter,

- Celia Burgess October 16, 2016 at 09:06 AM

I'm a bit unclear about when a candidate reaches their 1 quota how is it decided which of their votes are 'surplus' to the quota and which are not?

COMMENT: All the votes received in the bundle that put a candidate over the quota are examined for next preference. They are passed on at a reduced value roughly equal to the size of the surplus in votes divided by the votes in the last bundle received,

- Janet October 16, 2016 at 03:23 PM

Antony

How are preferences re-allocated once a candidate reaches a quota? Does the distribution of these 'above-quota' votes matter, as their preferences may not be the same as the votes that elected this candidate?

COMMENT: In Hare-Clark only the votes received at the point when the candidate is elected are examined for further preferences. Votes that reach a candidate before they achieved a quota are fully applied to electing that candidate and are not further examined or distributed.

Hare-Clark gives greater weight to first preference choices of voters. Unlike the Senate, in Hare-Clark your ballot paper is more likely to play a part in electing one candidate and one candidate only.

- Kevin October 17, 2016 at 09:36 AM

"All the votes received in the bundle that put a candidate over the quota are examined for next preference. They are passed on at a reduced value roughly equal to the size of the surplus in votes divided by the votes in the last bundle received."

Are you saying that a vote sitting in a candidate's pile since first preferences are thrown out and someone whose 5th preference gets someone elected is then carried on as almost potentially as much as a full vote?

I don't understand why it is only the last bundle. All the votes in their 'pile' at that time elected them not just those that push them over. In fairness they should all be divided up (i realise they would then very small values).

COMMENT: Hare-Clark is different from the Senate system. In the Senate most votes sit at the top of a party's ticket and so the distribution of preferences is more important than the first preference vote by candidate.

In Hare-Clark, very few candidates reach a quota, only two of the 25 elected ACT members in 2016. The process is about matching first preferences to elected members. If you give a first preference for a candidate, your vote elects that candidate unless that candidate is excluded in which case it counts by its preferences.

If your first preference is for an elected candidate and that candidate has more than a quota of votes, then part of your vote can carry on as a surplus. If your first preference is for a candidate with less than a quota of votes but who is later elected, then the counting system gives full effect to your first preference by electing the candidate you gave first preference to.

By your example, a vote counting by fifth preference only counts because the first preference didn't count.

As I always say, the best way to vote is always to list candidates in the order you wish to see them elected. Putting a false ordering for some sort of strategic reason can always result in your false preferences counting instead of your real preferences.

Both the Hare-Clark and the Senate system attempt to give effect to voter preferences as written on the ballot paper, but in subtly different ways. Both give greatest weight to your first preference, but the first preference is even more important in Hare-Clark.

- Mitch October 17, 2016 at 01:17 PM

"Putting a false ordering for some sort of strategic reason can always result in your false preferences counting instead of your real preferences."

Of course but to me this idea seems to encourage strategic voting. Unless your desired candidate is elected off first preferences, it is better to put somebody who has no chance in first so that you have an increased chance to be in a bundle that pushes somebody over the quota. That way you have an increased say on the next elected as well which is not afforded to those people who voted for them on their first preference.

If after the forth exclusion, Candidate A is under the quota by 1 vote, then the fifth exclusion gives them 100 votes, those 100 votes pass on to their next preference at 99% of their value and everybody else in the pile from earlier exclusions have no further say in the election with the only reason being they elected a person with a higher preference.

I realise they are small chances and decreased values but they exist.

I'm a fan of the Robson Rotation and no group voting but I do see this aspect of Hare-Clark as problematic and even inequitable.

COMMENT: If every voter who would normally vote for a candidate expected to be elected with more than a quota chose to vote strategically, then the candidate expected to be elected wouldn't be elected and all those people voting strategically would have resulted in the defeat of that candidate.

Strategic voting only works when you can assume that the overwhelming majority of voters don't vote strategically. You are gambling on human behaviour. Probably a safe gamble, but not one I ever wish to confuse people with by suggesting they vote for candidates in other than the order they wish to see them elected.

If you are confident that other voters will elect the candidate you wish to see elected, then you may choose to vote for someone else instead. But the chances of your first choice candidate being elected will always be increased by you voting for them rather than for someone else.

I always encourage voters to list candidate in the order they wish to see them elected rather than express preferences based on the mechanics of the counting system.

- Mitch October 18, 2016 at 09:36 AM

Re. Hare- Clarke: If you've got 27 candidates standing and you particularly don't want 17 of them. What's best please: to leave those unwanted 17 with blank boxes? or put them in the last 17 places on your preference list?

COMMENT: If you have an ordering for those 17 candidates then express that ordering with preferences as it gives your vote more chance to remain in the count and playing a part in which of those 17 candidates is elected. If you don't want any of those 17 elected and you don't have an ordering, then there is not much point bothering to number 17 preferences you don't have.

- Penny H October 18, 2016 at 09:36 AM

Under this scheme, would it not be better for the major parties to nominate only three candidates, to avoid splitting their vote ? It seems hardly likely that either major party would have any chance of picking up more than 3 seats in any of Canberra's electorates.

COMMENT: Perhaps, except that the ballot paper instructions say to give five preferences and 98% of voters do that. Also,by-elections are conducted by countback. If a party only stood three candidates and elected three members, then if a member resigned or died, the party would lose a seat to another party on countback. By-elections are the reason parties stand more candidates than they have to.

In Ireland where they do not have countbacks, parties only nominate as many candidates as they can elect.

- mich October 18, 2016 at 07:36 PM

> “In Australia, advocacy of Hare-Clark tends to come from people who think parties are evil”

"In Australia, advocacy of Hare-Clark tends to come from people who people who think that political parties have a useful role to play [*] but who also think that giving parties the power to grant, at will, six-year peerages that cannot realistically be overturned at the ballot-box, is a bad idea and produces lower-quality legislators."

Fixed it for you.

[* As evidenced by the fact that (a) Tasmania's Hare-Clark system was showing candidates' party affiliations on the ballot-paper a decade before any other Australian jurisdiction, and (b) that Neil Robson, author of Tasmania’s ballot rotation, also moved Australia's first successful Bill to enable party registration.]

COMMENT: Robson Rotation was advocated by Robson as a method of removing the donkey vote. It was put into law by Tasmanian Labor MPs to stymie an attempt by the party's state executive to impose a how-to-vote card. Almost all the advocacy of Hare-Clark, and especially of Robson Rotation, comes down to preventing parties controlling the order of their candidates being elected.

Way back in 1920, before there were party groups or party names on ballot papers, it was advocated as a way of voters choosing between the candidates of a party rather than parties only standing as many candidates as they were likely to elect. Ireland has never had the minimum number of preferences rules that have always applied in Australia, and discussion of PR-STV in the UK and Canada also doesn't go in the direction Australia has of getting parties to stand more candidates than they expect to elect, or engaging in exotic randomisation of candidates.